As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are. — Benkei

Your claim looks more silly than it sounds. Indeed, all we are doing here is discussing, and recurrently ranting over colonialist, genocidal and apartheid Israel apologists is part of your actual discussion. Unless by what you call “actual discussion” you are conveniently referring to “discussion I actually approve of and can’t get enough of hearing”, of course.
But, more to the point, if we are unable to discuss our different views over conflicts which do not constitute existential threats to us personally, how can one even hope that things can go differently for those who are directly involved in the conflict? Besides being this a philosophy forum and not a pro-Palestinian private club may be you could make a greater effort into putting your emotional rants aside, and start letting others question basic “obvious” assumptions and/or consequences of your views to earn yourself the intellectual legitimacy to question opposing views. And notice that our exchange is accessible by other posters, so even if you doubt my intentions you can still profit from my challenging questions to provide compelling arguments to the community following this thread.

So here again my questions to you, for the third time:

Why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

Obviously, I challenge you as any pro-Palestinian poster in this thread, who is convinced that Israel is a colonialist, apartheid, genocidal State comparable to Nazi Germany murdering thousands of Palestinian people and kids as a collective punishment.

Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx — Benkei

It works? Really? To whom? Did Netanyahu stop/reduce his butchery? By this rate when approximatively do you estimate Israel, a nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist state, is going to stop to exterminate Palestinian children by the thousands ?

↪neomac
More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do. — Benkei

Holy Benkei, I’m sure you have better things to do for the Palestinian cause than just insulting random nobodies on the internet and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows. So I keep wondering why you do not support/advocate for the Palestinian armed resistance publicly and vocally IN HERE as well as outside. After all, you wrote:

Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys. — Benkei

So again, why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious .
And what your reaction to my sarcasm manifestly shows, is that that’s your ONLY way out from admitting your own moral hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice.

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are. — Benkei

Dead kids won't give a shit about an anonymous nobody's sarcasm on this blog as you do, holy Benkei. That's why I'm so fascinated by the breadth of your moral compass.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works: — Benkei

Why though? You think it's ETHICALLY more compelling to stick to the law than to support Palestinian armed resistance? You would still stick to it till the last Palestinian kid is murdered by the apartheid genocidal colonialist Israeli Nazis? What would it need to happen for you to advocate/support the Palestinian armed resistance than it hasn't happened already?! Don't you feel the urgency of supporting Palestinian armed resistance? While you are "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change", thousands of kids are dying, and yet you seem confident that... what? That "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change" is more EFFECTIVE and ETHICALLY compelling than actually supporting/advocating the Palestinian armed resistance AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

↪neomac
Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here. — Benkei

Aaaaah you got me there, holy Bankei. I'm a big big big fan of yours. Besides you seem very much into mounting support against Israel's decade long butchery of Palestinians in here, aren't you? You are a human rights champion whom everybody in here should feel compelled to admire and look up to, aren't you? Fighting Israeli apologists in this thread as if this had any effect on reducing the ongoing butchery, especially of thousands of Palestinian children, by the genocidal apartheid colonialist Israeli Nazis doesn't seem enough though, does it? Would you go to a Palestinian family who lost all their children under IDF bombs to comfort them with "I'm insulting lots of anonymous people in a blog in the name of the pro-Palestinian cause, justice for your children is done, you can be proud of me"?

So my doubts remain:

1. If you are citizen of a country that supports a genocidal apartheid colonialist decade long butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis, by sending them weapons. Aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to fight with arms your own country’s government?

2. Notice that, in this case, your country is also using tax revenues to support its military industry at the service of a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children. For several decades. So YOU TOO (if you paid taxes) are personally however indirectly but KNOWINGLY supporting a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them, so far. So aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled at the very least to fiscally boycott your own pro-Nazi apartheid genocidal colonialist butchers' government?

3. And if your own country, doesn’t pay to support the Palestinian armed resistance, on the contrary, it supports Israel, then aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to pay your own money to support the Palestinian armed resistance to fight against a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them?

But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. — Benkei

And when do you think this is going to actually happen? Do you have an approximative idea? You know the genocidal apartheid expansionist massacre of Palestinians hasn't stopped yet, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis. And after 60 years of failing to make Israel come to its senses, maybe you should advocate for a stronger solutions, don't you think? There are countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium allegedly stopping to ship weapons to Israel, but the massacre hasn't stopped, right? So how long should Palestinian children wait for Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium to arm Palestinian resistance or actually send troops to Israel or bomb Israel to stop the slaughter of tens of thousand of them, to you? What can you do for them to make this happen as soon as possible? Do you think that whining over this thread about the West stopping to ship weapons to Israel is the most effective or ETHICAL way for you to contribute to preventing the Israel nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist criminal state from massacring Palestinian children by tens of thousands and the Palestinian people for decades at every hour that you are wasting in this thread? Do you feel ethically accomplished by insulting people in this thread instead of going to support the Palestinian armed resistance with your own money?

Actually that's a question for all pro-Palestinians in this thread, why do not advocating for supporting the Palestinian armed resistance as Iran is doing? There shouldn't be anything bad about it since Palestinians have the right to self-defence, right?
Can you me point me to pro-Palestinian grass-root protests in day light publicly advocating for Western countries to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
NATO military intervened in ex-Yugoslavia because of genocides going on there too. So if Israel is a genocidal apartheid state massacring Palestinians, why Western pro-Palestinians do not advocate for a NATO military intervention in Palestine to end the genocide?

Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. — Benkei

Are you in favor of your country supporting Palestinian armed resistance by arming the Palestinian to the teeth? Or you'd prefer Iran do it because you are against violence?

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine — Benkei

edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel — Benkei

Then why "unilaterally" ?

8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression — Benkei

Meaning? Policing too can be perceived as oppressive:
US justice is built to humiliate and oppress black men
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/11/chokehold-police-black-men-paul-butler-race-america
US must tackle police brutality against Black people head-on
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/us-police-brutality-un-experts-george-floyd

9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points — Benkei

So Israel should just trust Palestinian commitment? How about demilitarization and neutrality? How about the status of Jerusalem? Should it be integrally under the sovereignty of Israel?

(such as Merkel just telling us the Minsk agreements were done in bad faith) — boethius

you have both Western leaders and Ukrainian leaders, including Angela Merkel simply coming out and saying the goal of the Minsk accords was to buy time to build up Ukrainian military capacity. — boethius

As for Russia's actions, they are a signatory and so also guarantor of the Minsk agreements, both Ukraine and Western leaders have publicly admitted those accords were done in bad faith with no intention of following them — boethius

"The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine,"


Quoted from russian news agency TASS by the way.

Does it say "we did it in bad faith"? No. Does it say "we did it to prepare for war"? No. Does it say "we were actually planning to break the agreement right from the start? Hell no. — Echarmion

Indeed not only Merkel has NOT admitted what he claims she has, but it can not even be inferred from what she actually said or equated with what she actually said: reinforcing Ukrainian military not only is not incompatible with pursuing a cease-fire but it could also be instrumental to preserving a cease-fire.
Concerning "bad faith" accusations, apparently it's more plausible that Putin (arguably an expert in disinformatia) was duped by the Europeans (however interested in pacifying the conflict to come back to do business as usual with Russia, reason why they have been already rejecting/postponing NATO membership for Ukraine all along), than that Europeans were taking countermeasures against Putin's palpable bad faith back then (having Putin already violated various international and bilateral treaties by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and committing acts of armed aggression against Ukraine, and being very much interested in keeping a conflict in Donbas alive, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, or to allow further annexations). LOL.

the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem — boethius

I trust more exact quotations with source than your manipulative summaries. Anyways, the fact that “the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem” is far from being an admission or constituting evidence for the claim “the US bribes all the Ukrainian elites with billions of untraceable funds and weapons as well as essentially de facto full immunity for laundering the money anywhere in the West”. Indeed, the temptation of embezzling resources for personal profit could be common in the Ukrainian military apparatus, and fought by the central government as it is in the Russian military apparatus (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/14/russian-corruption-probe-widens-as-senior-defence-official-arrested). That has nothing to do with “bribing”.
Besides untraceable funds and lost weapons may have a strategic purpose other than just bribing : like fuelling military operations far from rats in the US administration, and assuring plausible deniability over Ukrainian clandestine operations.
On the other side when talking about actual cases of bribing, since we are in a context of geopolitical competition, I would care more about the American bribing vs the Russian bribing.

These are not sweeping assertions. They are very specific assertions that the RAND experts make, all I'm adding since the war started (as the RAND document is written in 2019) is that what RAND describes in their document comes to pass: US did escalate with more arms assistance and more boasting that Ukraine would join NATO, this caused Russia to take more territory and killing more Ukrainians, which is obviously what is called a "war" (or then a "bigger war" if you want to start the war in 2014). — boethius

So you are telling me that: “These idiots were needed to start the war (i.e. keep shelling the Donbas for 8 years), and impose a terrorizing fascist dictatorship on the Ukrainian people in order to force people to the front (i.e. just straight up assassinate anyone engaging in critical thinking), as well as be propped up as elite soldier heroes for the part of Ukrainian society that actually wants to drink the coolaid” is a quotation or contains quotations from the RAND document? Are you crazy?

Biden doesn't need to bribe CNN journalists to do specific things. If you don't see that mainstream journalists are simply on "team elite" and say what their told to say, then there's little helping you. — boethius

Impeccable.

At this point Tzeench can only talk with the only serious guys who remained in this thread: namely, Tzeench, he and himself.
He comes here, asks himself questions, and then answers to himself. There is lots of agreeing with himself going on, apparently. And then he goes in another thread to do the same.
Serious as shit.

The only thing to change is that the US bribes all the Ukrainian elites with billions of untraceable funds and weapons as well as essentially de facto full immunity for laundering the money anywhere in the West. It's not just Zelensky getting bribed and also Zelensky is an idiot so I have little problem believing that the money is less important to him than playing the war hero in the script given to him. — boethius

But if billions of funds used to bribe ALL Ukrainian elites by the US are “untraceable”, how can you claim with such a certainty that the US is bribing ALL the Ukrainian elites, besides Zelensky?!

These idiots were needed to start the war (i.e. keep shelling the Donbas for 8 years), and impose a terrorizing fascist dictatorship on the Ukrainian people in order to force people to the front (i.e. just straight up assassinate anyone engaging in critical thinking), as well as be propped up as elite soldier heroes for the part of Ukrainian society that actually wants to drink the coolaid. — boethius

I prefer to review criteria, compelling facts and, possibly, metrics backing up such sweeping assertions. So far you didn’t offer much to me, but you keep talking as if you did. Rather surreal.

Like, you're talking as if these people are accountable to someone or something and would need to like someday makeup justifications or something for their actions and even try to make those make some sort of sense or whatever.

You're honestly really starting to scare me. — boethius

Don’t be scared man of honour, it was just a passtime exercise about you predicting the likely content of a future article which Biden would have "untraceably" bribed some CNN journalist to write.
At this point I think you yourself could write this article for CNN, since you have it all figured out. You could earn some dollars from the US (instead of the usual rubles) , you know,
and come back at us with: "once again, as I’ve predicted, motherfuckaaaas!"

So which one is a better neighbor? An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side of the border or a failed state that doesn't have the ability to control it's borders? — ssu

It would be better “An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side”. But what is this assessment useful for in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Your assessment looks to me as useful as the following one: “ which one is a better neighbour? An Israeli state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard its side of the border or an apartheid-genocidal-colonialist state?”
In the current circumstances Palestine is closer to be fully occupied and controlled by an Israeli state, than to remain a failed state neighbour.

Yet the fact is that the current Israeli administration does not want a peace agreement. Likud and it's fellow parties have been quite consistent in this. They have in writing said this and one should believe their word on this. This is absolutely crucial to understand, and this comes out very clearly from Likud's party's original charter from 1977:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) — ssu

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) [1]. His friend Trump too (among other American presidents) declared his support for a two state solution [2]. Besides given the fact that Netanyahu’s popularity has now sharply declined, one may believe that Israeli politics has potential to explore other plans than Netanyahu and Likud’s . Indeed other important Israeli parties and political leaders were opposing Likud’s strong stance toward Palestinian political aspirations and are open to the idea of a two state solution (in particular Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Arid party and former Prime Minister of Israel). However over time their views shifted to more nuanced, if not alternative solutions (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman expressed support for a "three-state solution"). What’s worse is that the current war is supported by ~2/3 of the Israelis and the support of a two state solution has sharply declined since 2013 and after October the 7th it reached ~10% [2].

So the problem looks to me deeper than Netanyahu and Likud.


[1]
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause) And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hezbollah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel - we must provide for our security needs.

https://www.haaretz.com/2009-06-14/ty-article/full-text-of-netanyahus-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan/0000017f-f587-d5bd-a17f-f7bffbae0000 (2009)



"I like two-state solution. Yeah. That's what I think… that's what I think works best. I don't even have to speak to anybody, that's my feeling... I think two-state solution works best,"
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-09-26/ty-article/netanyahu-trump-expected-to-discuss-russia-crisis-at-un-general-assembly/0000017f-e8a1-da9b-a1ff-ecef90d20000 (2018)

[2]
https://theconversation.com/most-israelis-dislike-netanyahu-but-support-the-war-in-gaza-an-israeli-scholar-explains-whats-driving-public-opinion-230046
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war-may-2024/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/
https://jcpa.org/poll-reveals-dramatic-shift-in-israeli-public-opinion-after-october-7-attacks/

Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas). You don't have to negotiate with terrorists. And you can continue building settlements in the West Bank.

That's why I don't believe in peace emerging in this war. This conflict can easily continue our lifetime and the lifetime of the next generation. — ssu

Hamas is more instrumental to Netanyahu than Fatah (and such a view would probably be reciprocated by Hamas) to justify his refusal to negotiate a two state solution. But as I said before, it’s not that Netanyahu is totally unwilling to consider other more negotiable options as an alternative to simply annexing all Palestinian territories and expelling Palestinian people. On the other side, a Palestinian state is a problem even for more moderate political views because the belligerent component of the Palestinian population can’t be easily contained by Palestinians, and when Palestinians were more free to decide for their future they were pursuing more maximalist goals without enough means to achieve them (see the rejection of the UN resolution, and democratic elections of Hamas). The same goes with Israel, which is a problem even for more moderate political views among Palestinians, because the belligerent component of the Israeli population can’t be easily contained by the moderate Israelis and Israel has more means to achieve maximalist goals than Palestinians.
This creates a reinforcing deadlock of reciprocal mistrust which I think, differently from you, is wider and deeper than Hamas and Likud. And it is rooted into historical Israelis’ and Palestinians’ threat perception also amongst more moderate views, with volatile moments of optimism. As discussed with you in previous posts, the situation of two people with national and territorial aspirations over the same piece of land looks to me inherently explosive. They would need at the same time to give up on territorial aspirations and on reparation for past abuses to get peaceful coexistence, which is understandably hard to achieve. Even more so if much less effort is required to destroy than to build trust.

see here

See also

Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas

A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance — ssu

OK thanks. Here some thoughts:

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar.
Second, the Qatari donations are a non-negligible but partial portion of Hamas income coming from taxes, legitimate business, covert smuggling, and international charity/donors (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/hamas-money, https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/11/02/sanctions-on-hamas-secret-investment-portfolio-unlikely-to-have-major-impact-on-groups-fun), so I’m not sure to what extent Qatari money that Israel has allowed to enter in Gaza was actually vital for or actually converted into Hamas’s armed resistance.
Third, if it is true that cash for “humanitarian aids” are embezzled by Hamas to pursue terrorist activities and everybody knows that, then Israel is to be blamed for allowing cash to flow into Gaza AS MUCH AS their donors (including the UNRWA financed by EU and US, Palestinian Authority, other international organisations like “World Vision”, Islamic charities, pro-Palestinian organisations etc.), because with no cash there would be no allowing and no embezzlement.
Third, from Netanyahu’s perspective, if Israel didn’t allow Qatar cash flow, Israel could have been blamed for obstructing humanitarian aids (especially under the pressure of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza back in 2014) after the blockade of 2007 by the international community including UN and humanitarian organisations (like Human Rights Watch). On the other side, one can’t exclude that such money could flow into Gaza anyways through alternative channels (e.g. Hamas tunnels and Hawala networks), bypassing Israel/international monitoring. Besides, if Qatari money could replace Palestinian Authority’s money, then this would therefore weaken Palestinian Authority’s influence over Gaza. So, to me, the problem doesn’t seem to be Netanyahu’s green light to a Qatari cash flow into Gaza per se, but in the lack of adequate supervision of its usage and so in failing “to ensure the funds don’t go to terrorism”, as declared.
Fourth, one may wonder if this lack of supervision was intentional, or the result of overconfidence or negligence, and then suspect the worst from Netanyahu (whatever that might be). But that's the part I find less interesting. So all I feel more confident to say is that it’s consistent with the Likud chart that Netanyahu could sow Palestinian divisions to thwart the idea of a two state solution, as you claim. Yet it’s consistent with Netanyahu’s statements/beliefs and the general attitude of Israel toward Gaza (Israel was ready to give Gaza to Egypt and it already withdrew its settlers and military forces from Gaza in 2005) that the West Bank is politically more significant to Israel than Gaza. So it doesn’t look implausible to me that Netanyahu would have been willing to explore a form of coexistence with Hamas at the expense of Fatah, by letting a cash flow from Qatari replace the cash flow from the Palestinian Authority under his supervision. And this might have played well for Netanyahu in either ways: Hamas could have chosen to turn into a wealthy mafia organization de facto co-existing with Israel (the “buy quiet” option) and marginalizing Fatah's influence. Or Hamas could have chosen to keep pursing its anti-Israel resistance ("on steroids" if Qatari cash was such a big help), but in this case Netanyahu would have granted for Israel a good pretext for striking back at Hamas harder, to the point of eradicating Hamas from Gaza. However highly risky for the Israelis and for Netanyahu himself, the calculus doesn’t seem to me strategically unsound. Actually, it bears some similarity with the “carrot and stick” approach of the West toward Russia and China in the last 30 years or so, in that the load of money that flowed into Russia during the post-Cold War globalization (+ sanctions and bad propaganda in the name of human rights) was meant to push Russian and Chinese elites to focus on improving economic and civic standards of life for their people, instead of supporting their imperialist ambitions.
Fifth, even if Israeli support for Netanyahu looks irrecoverably compromised, yet Netanyahu’s strategy has played in favour of his political goals. Indeed, Israeli politicians from the opposition and ordinary citizens are more skeptical about the two state solution than they used to be and more convinced about the necessity of eradicating Hamas from Gaza.

Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas — ssu

Can you provide evidence supporting your claim?

Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? — neomac

How accountable are you yourself of your governments actions? You've voted, right? So you how much accountable are you again for everything they have ever done? — ssu

The aim of my argument wasn’t about attributing INDIVIDUAL responsibility for EVERY political CHOICE made by governments which I find rather problematic to determine (that’s why I can’t readily answer your question and notice, it’s definitely a topic worth investigating to me). What I find more relevant and less problematic to determine is to assess COLLECTIVE motivations and means to control their government’s POWER by comparison with other collectivities.
For example, in Wetsern-like democratic regimes people can pressure their governments in various degrees depending on their DISSATISFACTION with governments’ policies AND MEANS available to them more easily than in authoritarian regimes where concentration of military, legal, economic and political power is in the hands of few people.
So by "accountability" I was referring to the fact that depending on political performance governments and leaders can get a more or less support from their base.
Now, in the ongoing circumstances, if Palestinians have poor means to pressure Hamas even in case they were intolerably dissatisfied with Hamas, and if Palestinians’ dissatisfaction with Hamas ranges from tolerable in peacetime to active support in wartime [1], then how can Palestinians get rid of Hamas by their own initiative? I would expect you to agree with me on the fact that they likely can’t. And I would expect you to agree with me that Hamas likely profits more from war than from peace in terms of support from Palestinians. Do you agree?
If you agree with all that, then let’s assess how plausible it is that Hamas is ousted from foreign intervention: like from Israel or the rest of the international community. The international community from the “broader” West is divided between support of Israel and support of Palestinians, the rest of the world is mostly supporting Palestinians (if not Hamas, like Iran). And when we talk about support to Palestinian, this mostly means promoting/pursuing political and economic pressure on Israel but not Hamas, because this would damage Palestinians too (think also about the desire to reduce military support of Israel while Hamas can get military support from Iran, and even a more direct military meddling from Iran).
So if the international community doesn’t put enough political/economic pressure on Hamas out of fear of adding further suffering on Palestinians without eradicating Hamas, and Palestinians can’t put enough political/economic pressure on Hamas to oust Hamas. Who else is left with ACTUAL SKIN in the game beside the Palestinians, and with means to eradicate Hamas? The Israelis. And since Israelis can’t put enough political/economic pressure directly on Hamas to eradicate Hamas without help of the international community, they are left with siege and war as we are seeing. Do you agree?


[1] As a side note, I have some doubts about your interpretation of the evidence I brought up and you acknowledged as “understandable” in the previous post, but for now I’ll go with your interpretation.

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago). — ssu

No idea what you are compering here, and be careful with what you are comparing since your similarities can be rather misleading.

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago). — ssu

Slogans are simple, they have to be. Protests typically oppose one thing or want one thing.

If you start with the details, there's going to be a myriad of views and opinions. A sovereign state should take into account these kinds of facts when deciding on it's Middle East policy, but it's a bit too much from a protest. — "ssu

It looks rather ironic to me that you go on from denouncing Israeli leaders’ propaganda to a more detached analysis of the pro-Palestinian students’ propaganda. Indeed, your consideration about slogans is plausible but rather myopic. Talking about “Evil city" and the fact that Palestinians voted for Hamas (although once “many many” years ago) are good as the pro-Palestinian students’ slogans as far as their rhetoric nature. So also behind Israeli propaganda there can be “a myriad of views and opinions”.
But, most importantly, the point of political propaganda is precisely to make people with potentially “a myriad of views and opinions” converge into trusting an actual or potential political leadership’s ability to meet the sentiment of the people (hence the emotionally loaded slogans).
And it’s MOST CERTAINLY a political job to take into account the opinions of the masses if they want to remain in power because masses’ trust can be very much volatile, incoherent and their sentiment expresses more WISHES than support for ACTUAL political policies (which often still need to be implemented in light of the available means) or even EFFECTIVE political policies (due to inherent complexities and uncertainties of the political game at a national or international level). It’s rather the masses of self-entitled nobodies populating grass-root political activism that indulge in wishful thinking about politicians’ actual ability to offer ready and effective solutions to FIX world’s injustices.
Knowing that people have “a myriad of views and opinions” is a nightmare they have to struggle with as long as they are politicians, hence the irrepressible need for political propaganda no matter what part of the political spectrum one wants to be placed in. As much as the irrepressible need to exploit wishful thinking of self-entitled nobodies about politicians’ actual ability to offer ready and effective solutions to FIX world’s injustices, again no matter what part of the political spectrum one wants to be placed in.
That’s why, AS I ALREADY SAID, I take the political game (including political propaganda) for what it is. BUT now I’m in a philosophy forum so I do not indulge in spinning political propaganda (e.g. I don’t base my analysis and arguments on slogans and rhetoric tricks) nor tolerate others’ political propaganda, and have ZERO interest in flattening analysis in score counting between propaganda and counter-propaganda. I find it shallow, if not hypocritical, and arrogant.

if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

OK. But do protesters think this way? — ssu

Right after the excerpt you quoted I wrote: “And I also find more plausible that they know this (however inconvenient to admit) than they genuinely ignore this. Do you agree?”
Still waiting for an unequivocal answer from you on this.

Is the Palestinian state problematic? You bet it is. The real paradox is that Israel needs a reasonably powerful neighboring state to sign and uphold a peace agreement, but it doesn't want Palestine to be "a reasonably powerful state". Then how could Palestine be a state like Jordan, capable of putting into line fringe groups that want to lob projectiles at Israel? — ssu

Not sure if this is what Israeli needs. Even less sure that a Palestinian state can hold this role in the foreseeable future. Besides history has proven that Israel has more or less been able to build and exploit strategic alliances with global powers (the US and Russia) and regional powers (Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) with means to stabilise the situation in Middle-East.

Humble advise, don't challenge him too much. Mikie is a typical case of "emotional flatulence":

"Fart in the Wind is a metaphor for emotional flatulence. [...] It compares the act and response to "farting,” to the act and response to sharing honest feelings, shock, shame, embarrassment and desire to run from the scene."

Here @Mikie, see if you can find some help: https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Flatulence-Establish-Healthy-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0079QQDP4

Which is understandable, because with the armed resistance comes the Israeli bombs. In "peace time" the authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but comparing that to be bombed all the time and have to move around and not be in your home, that is quite little. — ssu

OK so you do not question the evidence I brought up, on the contrary you find it understandable. Now I have some questions to you: if the Palestinians are more prone to support Hamas’ armed resistance in war time, and if in peace time Hamas’ authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but not as big as Israeli bombs, then how could Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? If you agree, do we have compelling evidence that Gazan Palestinians’ motivation to make Hamas accountable for their actions to the point of ousting them is greater than their motivation against Hamas authoritarian rule? And if so, do we have compelling evidence that Gaza Palestinians have more effective means to make Hamas accountable for its actions to the point of ousting them, than grumpily but passively living with Hamas political, military and economic rule, which would also enable Hamas to commit further aggressions triggering more Israeli bombs?

And we were actually talking about the American student protests and if they are such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and it's objectives... or not. — ssu

Again, I find it plausible that American student protests are mostly not such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. Still what I found debatable is the claim “those holding Palestinian flags aren't supporters of Hamas” which comes with no caveats, no nuance (while you seemed very much interested in American student protests’ nuanced views , right?). And I gave you my argument because your claim, however plausible, looks rather myopic to me.
But I’ll try to put it in more concrete and simple terms: if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. And I also find more plausible that they know this (however inconvenient to admit) than they genuinely ignore this. Do you agree?

that's sweet to share your feelings with us, buddy... and you know... it's also kind of sad that you have to suffer because Ukrainians have to suffer and die because they’re in between a proxy war instigated by the United States. Do you think a popsicle would make you feel better, buddy? What about going back to watch some Peppa Pig on TV on the sofa?

Another prediction I'm pretty extremely confident on is that these kinds of hopeless offensives are mainly about getting rid of these dangerous morons: you want to fight Russians? You think "not-attacking-Russia" has been the big mistake? Have we got the operation for you!!! — boethius

You mean that Biden has bribed Zelensky to get rid of the Ukrainian ultra nationalists by sending them to certain death with "these kinds of hopeless offensives" because they do not serve anymore the US and then Biden will pay some CNN journalist to write an article to fault the Ukrainains also for this, right?
Here some options, the CNN journalist will:
- Blame Zelensky for sacrificing its best combatants and dooming his country to certain defeat since other Ukrainians are too peaceful, coward or corrupt to fight patriotic wars as only Western men of honor can do, right? And therefore for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Or blame Zelensky for understanding too late ultra-nationalists were a real danger (since they pushed him and all Ukraine to a catastrophic war after committing a 8-year genocide in Donbas) after years of lies to silence Western concerns about Ukrainian neo-nazis? And therefore for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Or blame Zelensky for realizing too late that defeat was inevitable and getting rid of the ultra-nationalists was the only way to finally surrender to Russia's peace conditions, which he didn't need to. Indeed, if he only accepted the Russian deal (see Instanbul Communiquée) as advised by Biden behind doors (to keep publicly honoring Ukrainians' free decision) instead of spreading the lie that the West tried to block it, none of this would happen. And therefore blame Zelensky should be also blamed for obliging the West to take the hard decision to not support Ukraine's reconstruction after they squandered the Western aids so recklessly?
- Others?

This is reminiscent of the old sentiment about the weakness of democracy in a fight with authoritarianism, isn't it?

I think the reality is more complicated. Democracies are often clumsy and inefficient, but the plurality of views they offer also makes them more resilient. History has not been kind to autoritarian regimes that assumed that a democratic state would just fold because it's people and government would lack the will to fight. — Echarmion

Sure, but one must assess pros and contra of the Democratic vs Authoritarian decision process as it applies to evolving circumstances influenced by differences in economic performance, military capacity, demographic and cultural factors, technology advancement, systems of alliance, so I’m not sure that what held in the past, will still hold in the future. The other institutional issue with Western democracy is due to several comparative advantages that favour anti-West authoritarian regimes:
1. Western democracies can be infiltrated by propaganda from hostile authoritarian regimes to sow confusion and division in the West more easily than the other way around.
2. Western democracies can be corrupted by authoritarian regimes more easily than the other way around since in the latter case surveillance is tighter and traitors risk their lives, if not also that of their family (even abroad). You may have heard about the American youtube influencers paid by Russia (https://www.npr.org/2024/09/07/nx-s1-5101895/doj-says-russia-paid-right-wing-influencers-to-spread-russian-propaganda, Margarita Simonyan - the editor-in-chief of the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT - is even publicaly boasting about RT's covert propaganda targeting Americans https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1831398758137127099, https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1761911899363426795 )
3. Institutionalized humanitarian concerns in Western democracies (way more acute now than in the past see the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, plus 2 nuclear bombs during WW2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_strategic_bombing) can be weaponised against the West: i.e. enemies of the West are more free to execute all sorts of war crimes , and by this means destroy public moral more easily than Westerners can afford, while accusing the West of hypocrisy at every suspicion of war crimes committed by the West (no matter what laws of war say about collateral damage).

With regards to aid for Ukraine especially, one aspect that seems underrepresented in the discussion is that there might be more going on internationally than we are directly aware of. The narrative is usually that western governments limit aid and restrict weapon use in order to not anger domestic constituencies. And that is certainly the case. But it might also be the case that a number of important international actors wouldn't be too happy to see the west throw it's entire armaments capacity in behind Ukraine. Chief among them China.

It seems plausible that China is threatening western nations with much more significant support for Russia because China does not care to hand the West a clean "win" in Ukraine. — Echarmion

I agree, the conflict in Ukraine in an emergent multi-polar world order brings with it all kinds of security dilemmas , including the ones about all other relevant geopolitical actors actual or potential moves (like the race for strategic autonomy in terms of commodity supply for supporting a potential war effort, adequate military industrial complex, military conscription, nuclear weapons, plans to deal with asymmetric warfare which democracies are vulnerable to, strategic alliances, etc.)

Again, unfortunately I still don't have too much time to deconstruct in detail all of your misconceptions and correct them — boethius

Surprise surprise.

Yes, obviously the point of pointing out Russia can be invaded from Ukraine is to point out that is therefore a legitimate security concern of Russia, as well as to emphasize that Russia will be much more committed to the war than the US — boethius

.

Exactly this argument, the way you expressly formulated it, is a NON SEQUITUR, logically speaking. To be logically valid you should argue something like this:
Premise 1 : If X can be invaded from Y by Z, then X has a legitimate security concern,
Premise 2: Russia can be invaded from Ukraine by the US,
Conclusion: Russia has a legitimate security concern

Once you explicit all the premises, for your inference to be valid we can discuss the premises, their meaning, the evidence that support them or their likelihood and assess the explanatory power of the argument vs alternative arguments (like Russian imperialism).

BTW here 3 Russian sources questioning that Putin's alleged "security concerns" were a good reason to start his war against Ukraine:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930199
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930301
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/930306

It's in the situation of wanting to come to an agreement with Russia that assigning legitimacy to some of their concerns is necessary. Some of that could be purely pragmatic (we don't genuinely agree, but some compromise is needed for a deal) and some could be genuine agreement (for example because we would have the same concern if the situation was reversed; aka. the Soviet Union placing missiles in Cuba) — boethius

.

All right, now the possibility that the US can invade Russia from Ukraine once Ukraine joins NATO is something the US negotiators have conceded to Russia? Or something YOU (A SELF-ENTITLED ANONYMOUS NOBODY) THINK the US has to concede to Russia to reach a deal? Or for a cooperative understanding of security concern? In both cases, on what grounds do you believe that is what the US should concede?

Now, if you say "Bah!! Nothing the Russians want is legitimate!!" then ok, you can hold that position but what follows from that is therefore more fighting and if that's your position then you need to justify more fighting as a worthwhile endeavour: aka, what's the plan? how to win? what does more fighting achieve for Ukraine? and so on. — boethius

If with “you” you are referring to me and not to your imaginary friend, then I told you many many many times how I reason, so that you do not need to invent things at your convenience. In this forum I’m arguing in light of my understanding of geopolitics and history, once we clarified such understanding of mine we can talk my preferences (why I side with the West/NATO/Ukraine/US). But these are two separate things.
Concerning geopolitics, in short, state leaders and governments determine security concerns based (at best) on perceived “national” interest (that’s important to gain popular political legitimacy) and means to pursue them relative to their potential competitors and allies. If states are security maximisers then they will be compelled to project their power beyond their borders at the expense of their competitors. Those states in the middle that can’t compete are compelled to ally with the one perceived as less oppressive amongst the most powerful competitors, if they can't afford to remain neutral. I interpret everything else concerning military, economic, political, propaganda moves in light of this core assumption. The US and Russia are examples of competing powers and Ukraine allies with the one perceived as the less oppressive. ALL THREE as sovereign states are compelled to pursue their national interest, each of them according to their means.

Which you've never done!! It's always ... well Ukrainians want to fight, it's their choice. — boethius

I don’t feel compelled by your framing so I raised objections to it which you keep avoiding to address.
On the other hand, my answer is in line with my geopolitical assumptions as applied to the Ukrainian conflict.
So if you want to sound challenging to me, then you have to address my objections to your framing assumptions and/or raise objections to my framing assumptions, NOT to keep repeating your claims based on your framing assumptions.

To which my response is that coercion is not free choice and the West bribing Ukrainian elites as well as bold faced lying to the Ukrainian people is called coercion. Likewise, forcibly drafting people and forcing them to front is also coercion and not "Ukrainians want to fight". — boethius

First, so far, these are just allegations. I’m still waiting for you to list the lies Ukrainian elites have been bribed to tell the Ukrainian people by the West, and provide documented cases supporting it.
Second, there is the strategic perspective: if Ukrainian elites can be bribed by the West to lie, they can be bribed by the Russians too, right? [1] So, as far as I'm concerned, even bribing and lies can be better understood in light of foreign competing powers whatever the environment of domestic corruptible political elites is. Still it’s up to Ukrainians elites and their base to decide what to do about it.
Third, “forcibly drafting people and forcing them to front is also coercion and not ‘Ukrainians want to fight’” is a fallacious argument as I explained. There is no contradiction in episodes of forced conscription and ‘Ukrainians want to fight’, nor any inherently compelling proof of immorality or illegality in forcing conscription, that’s in the Ukrainian constitution and civic duty.
Fourth, my argument that ‘Ukrainians want to fight’ is grounded on geopolitical principles (it’s up to sovereign states’ political leaders to determine national interest also in accordance to popular sentiment) and history of Ukraine (the ethnic rivalry between Russia and Ukraine has a long history which also Mearsheimer discussed in the article you cited), as I argued. In several previous posts I also provided additional supporting arguments from their institutions, polls, social media research, access to foreign media and reports, and so on. What I can acknowledge is that ‘Ukrainians want to fight’ comes with more caveats now than it used to. Understandably so.

[1]
https://www.politico.eu/article/voice-of-europe-russia-influence-scandal-election/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-is-weaponizing-corruption-to-weaken-europe-from-within/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/19/ukraine-corruption-us-accountability-war/
https://www.csce.gov/articles/russia-s-weaponization-corruption-and-western-complicity/
https://visegradinsight.eu/russia-bribe-eu-corruption-ukraine/
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36723
https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-burisma-terror-financing/32898922.html

You're theory around these questions is so hopeless confused that unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to explain exactly why they are hopelessly confused. — boethius

That’s why I have no pity for you. Apparently you have enough time to repeat once again arguments you have repeated already thousand times. But zero time to respond pertinently to objections, though.

And this is on top of never answering simple questions such as how many Nazis in Ukraine would be too many Nazis with too much power and therefore appeasement of said Nazis to not invade? If you have a theory of just war then you should be able to answer this question and then go onto explain that the Nazi levels in Ukraine do reach the required number and influence to morally require un-impeasement which would therefore be exactly the invasion we see. — boethius

I never claimed that I have a theory of just war, and you never explained to me why a theory of just war should answer “simple questions such as how many Nazis in Ukraine would be too many Nazis with too much power and therefore appeasement of said Nazis to not invade?”
Besides the video YOU POSTED (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA) offers some input on this:
- 
At minute 9:39 the guy says “if you look at the electoral results of the far-right political parties in Ukraine, they actually only add up add up to 1.65% IN TOTAL, which is less than some INDIVIDUAL far-right parties in other European countries have achieved” and that doesn’t even reach the bar for obtaining any seats.
- At minute 15:54, the guy answers to question about the scale of the Azov phenomenon as follows: “In absolute numbers, it’s a TINY TINY TINY of the Ukrainian population. None knows for sure, but I think the last reliable figures were about 2000 active fighters at any one time”, while the wider Azov movement is max 20k people.

- At minute 12:32, the guy goes even so far to concede: “If there wasn’t a neo-nazi problem before this war, there might be afterwards”. So Putin’s war would be the reason why there is a neo-nazi problem for Ukraine that wasn’t there before the war.
I could go on with the Russian Nazis that started the invasion in Ukraine. But I did that already, abundantly, in previous posts which you missed or ignored. And will still miss or ignore. Start from here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882175

Also, generally speaking, everything I have predicted is now coming to pass, so it seems redundant to point it out everyday. It's sort of perfunctory at this point, but I'll keep repeating myself when I have a moment. — boethius

I don’t care about your predictions. I care about your arguments.
But yes keep repeating, pls. I can’t get enough of your poison.

I'll quote myself when I have the time, but within the first weeks of the war I predicted that as soon as it no longer served US interest the throwing-under-the-bussing would commence and that at anytime the US can simply paint the Ukrainians as losing, and one thing Americans don't like is people who lose, and that the loss is Ukrainians fault, that they should have tried harder and won instead — boethius

.

The purpose of this article by CNN is to signal to the American elite that the "Ukraine show" is just about wrapped up and to inform them who the blame will be assigned to. — boethius

One can make certain predictions based on historical patterns in American foreign policy and related propaganda. But identifying historical patterns depend also on how blind one is to other relevant circumstantial factors that may differ from one case to the other. You are overly dismissive of the Ukrainian agency and the relevance of the challenges that the US is facing now wrt to the ones the US when it was the unique super power immediately after the end of the Cold War. So your prediction doesn't make your argument more compelling, even in case it turns “roughly” right.
Besides your self-promoting routine of manipulatively interpreting conveniently chopped claims from mainstream media as evidence to support your grand denunciation of Western conspiracy propaganda, is intellectually repellent. Propaganda for the good and for the bad is part of the game, so we have to take it for what it is and assess it in the context of the political game we think it’s being played. I and you do not only differ in the way we understand the political game which is being played, but you seem to believe that spinning pro-Russian counter-propaganda is a master piece of deconstructionist analysis of pro-Western propaganda.

But they also appear to be struggling with problems of their own making. — CNN

So ... who's to blame for the West putting the Ukrainians up to fighting a war with the Russians that every single Western analyst and "decision maker" knew they would lose? (especially as they 100% knew that "whatever it takes" and "for as long as it takes" are obvious lies) — boethius

Your universal claim “every single Western analyst and ‘decision maker’ knew they would lose” was and is evidently questionable:
https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202207-ukraine-final-web_0.pdf
https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/survival-online/2024/01/making-attrition-work-a-viable-theory-of-victory-for-ukraine/
And I doubt that every Western analyst would ground his/her analysis on "whatever it takes" and "for as long as it takes" declarations. Indeed, there is no mention of these claims in the 2 articles I posted. You are embarrassingly unfamiliar to or purposefully ignoring basic notions of logic and argumentation.

If memory serves me right, when I said the Ukrainians will be thrown under the exact same bus that we threw our "Afghani friends" it was you that explained that it's different because the Ukrainians are more "culturally close" or something along those lines (aka. we wouldn't let down white people) — boethius

Yes indeed, I still think that Ukrainians are culturally closer to the West than the Afghans or Iraqis or the Russians, for that matter. I still do believe so. But this claim is only part of a larger argument explaining the ratio of Western/American support for the Ukrainian resistance, to my understanding.

If you offered arguments, you didn't offer evidence — ssu

.

Which is evidently false. For example, in my previous post I claimed “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” (notice that is a generic generalization, not a universal generalization). And reported the evidence supporting it:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806498

You may not like it, but it’s false to claim that I offered none. Besides, if you do not find them convincing, explain why and then provide more convincing evidences to support your claim than the ones I provided to support mine.

And your argument is like saying that all Americans support the Democrats, because they are in power. And Hamas hold little if anything now, with the West Bank being in control of the Fatah. Which makes your arguments simply poor. — ssu

But that’s not “my arguments” at all. You should counterargue the arguments I actually made not the ones you wish to compare them to, because they are more easy to contradict.
Concerning the comparison, first, I didn’t write anywhere “all Palestinians support Hamas” (which would be like “all Americans support the Democrats”). My generic generalisation (“Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time”) is grounded on the evidences I provided (not only, though). I have no interest in overestimating the Palestinian support for Hamas (here is one Palestinian who is manifestly anti-Hamas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef).
Second, I repeatedly clarified what I mean by “pro-Hamas”. In short: they “do not need to explicitly justify Hamas’ response to Israel to be considered pro-Hamas, they can even condemn it (many actually do, when solicited), yet they will complain about Israel in relative terms as way worse than Hamas, and as the one who started all of it, no matter the Jewish history and Israeli security concerns.” If holding a certain narrative (like Israel started it as a colonialist state, and Israel did WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse than Hamas because actually genocidal and apartheid) is more instrumental to Hamas than to Israel, then it is enough for me to label it as pro-Hamas (as much as my views being more instrumental to Israel than to Hamas, can be labelled “pro-Israel”). One can get the pro-Palestinian sentiment also from social media: ”For instance, hashtags loaded with political implication, such as #freepalestine, have over 9,442,504 posts while #freepalestinefromhamas has over 41,424 posts”. (Source: https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/scrolling-social-media-sentiments-on-the-gaza-war/) which suggests that Hamas (and their methods) is not perceived as the main obstacle to free Palestine, which means that Israel security concerns are not addressed as Israel would need. Another interesting study of social media consistent with what just said is this: https://www.isjq.ir/article_89793_d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e.pdf
Palestinian activists mainly use social media either to stir solidarity to the Palestinian cause from the rest of the World, or to advocate for violent resistance: neither of which are ways to address Israel’s security concerns as Israel would need, right?
Third, if Hamas hold little if anything now, it is because Hamas was holding enough, if not too much before. And Netanyahu looks determined to eradicate Hamas’ organization and infrastructure from Gaza, until he is satisfied with it. But more to the point, what is the claim that “Hamas hold little if anything now” supposed to prove wrt the evidences I provided to support my claim that “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” or that pro-Palestinians are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel?

Again with your thinking that Palestine = Hamas. — ssu

Palestine = Hamas may be good as a slogan. But I offered arguments and evidences, not slogans. So do not put slogans into my mouth. That's a straw man argument. Indeed, you can not quote me claiming Palestine = Hamas, nor you can logically infer that Palestine = Hamas, from what I said.

...just like anybody else, me and you included. — neomac

Well, of course an interviewer can just ask the protesters what are they doing and why and leave then those who watch it to make their own conclusions. — ssu

Sure, but one can clearly hear such students express support for martyrdom, provocation, and resistance narrative, while refusing to explicitly acknowledge their implications when such narrative is to be applied to Hamas, no matter what the interviewer wants me to conclude. And the reason why I believe they are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel doesn’t depend on their holding Hamas flags, or their praising Hamas’ actions, or their response to controversial questions (like the one about decapitated kids), but on their actually chosen arguments and rhetoric.

What political impact do they have?

I don't think so much. In the media, "students" are basically portrayed to be protesting for one thing. Now it's Palestine, another time it was Black live matters. Even Greta has changed his costume to wear a keffiyeh. — ssu

In the current political circumstances, it’s plausible that students protests may have a non-negligible impact (also in the long term). This was more plausible when Biden was the likely candidate [1], with Harris maybe less, but I doubt her declarations would be enough for pro-Palestinian protestors (https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc).
Besides, my argument should still be compelling even if we reasoned in hypothetical terms.

[1]
As the Biden administration balances its policy commitments with the need to address concerns from a crucial segment of its electoral base, media analysts suggest that his response to the Gaza War is costing him support among the young voters who played a significant role in his 2020 election victory. However, dissatisfaction with Biden’s policies does not appear to be shifting young voters toward President Trump. Instead, it is leading to increased disengagement, with 14 percent of young voters indicating they would opt out of voting if the presidential election were held today. Given the overwhelming preference for Biden over Trump among young voters, these opt-outs could significantly influence the election, potentially tilting it in Trump’s favor.
https://globalamericans.org/explaining-and-predicting-the-impact-of-student-protests-across-the-americas-finding-a-balance/

Eman Abdelhadi, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, said younger people are growing increasingly frustrated with the status quo on domestic and foreign policy issues.
“I think there’s a real disaffection with the older generation, but more importantly with the system that they’re running,” said Abdelhadi.
She added that the protests mark an “inflexion moment” in US public opinion more broadly.
“In American history in general, usually the big shifts in public opinion have either coincided with or been triggered by large student movements,” Abdelhadi told Al Jazeera.
She said campus activism can be the basis of political change. “There’s a sort of sense that this is the future.”

“The reality is the Democrats have been telling us that young people need to save democracy and that people of colour need to save democracy and that any quibbles with this current administration need to be put aside in order to save democracy,” she told Al Jazeera.
“But where’s the democracy when you have state troopers beating up students and faculty for protesting, and the White House saying nothing about that?”
Wasow also said the protests and crackdown against them could add to the apathy towards Biden.
“The Democrats can’t really afford to give people more reasons to vote against Biden, and this actually becomes one.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/26/generation-gap-what-student-protests-say-about-us-politics-israel-support

What a government does to foreigners ought to matter. — ssu

Political leaderships may more likely find this argument compelling to the extent what “a government does to foreigners” matters to domestic people. But this in turn also includes domestic people’s perception of foreigners’ hostility and the degree of trust domestic people put in their political leaderships’ policies toward hostile foreigners.

And there are laws of war. — ssu

Some of us still make the difference between a civilian and a combatant. — ssu

The problem is that asymmetric warfare and terrorism challenge the classic distinction in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. Hamas’ asymmetric warfare blurs the distinction between civilians and combatants. What’s worse is that Hamas is not only nationalist but also Islamist, so I’m not sure Hamas can ever be ideologically committed to IHL at all.
Besides the weight of laws of war depends on the international order that supports them. And in the current predicament the Western-led international order (supposedly championing humanitarian principles) is destabilised by authoritarian forces hostile to such Western-led international order and exploiting the war in Ukraine as much as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accordingly.

Then don't think that everybody else see's the conflict as black and white — ssu

.

Dude, we were talking about the pro-Palestinian student protests, right?
I already conceded as plausible that “American students who protest for Palestine are far more protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending) than supporters of the armed branches of the Palestinians in a way that would put them on a terrorist watch list”. I also conceded that the interviewer has his own biases betrayed by questions and reactions meant to elicit a certain response from his target audience. And I have no qualms even about conceding that pro-Palestinian student protests may have more nuanced and diverse views than such interviewers are interested to explore. But that is beside the point I was making.
STILL, protesting students are political activists aiming at achieving a certain political impact on government and public opinion through their actions and speeches. When protesting, they already made up their mind about what to do and how to talk, also in front of biased interviewers. When political activists engage in their protests, it’s no longer time for pondered analysis of reasons and consequences, expectations and realities, because as Marx said “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” . So I take their political activism for what it is. And good luck with that!
But we are in a philosophy forum, not in a political forum, and I don’t buy into Marx’s motto. In other words, I’m willing to question their views as much as let others question my views without indulging into fancy slogans, emotional arguments, unverifiable conspiracy arguments, self-serving denigratory labelling and all sorts of sophisms to entrench oneself in their own ideological comfort zone.
So here my virtual questions to them: once one buys into the idea that Israel is a colonialist, genocidal, and apartheid state, would Israel lose this defamatory label immediately after acknowledging the two state solution? Or does anyone need to be reminded of it as much as possible for generations to come as anyone is reminded of the Nazis crimes? But then, why should one think that Palestinians’ grievances against Israel as a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state will be appeased once for all with a two state solution? Why should one think that once the Palestinian state will be in condition to openly and legitimately re-arm and have its own national army, while taking military control over a larger portion of Palestinian territory, there will be no chance that revisionist or revanchist Palestinian movements would politically rise and threaten Israel, a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state, or just restart terrorist attacks against Israel, a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state? Maybe still with the support of anti-Israel regional allies? BTW If Israel as a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state has nuclear weapons, does the new Palestinian state have the right to have its nuclear weapons to defend itself?

First of all, Israel exists, and it's victory in this conflict should be evident from the fact that the arguing is over the 1967 borders — ssu

.

Who’s arguing are you referring to? Even if pro-Israeli students would be supportive of a two state solution, Hamas still questions the right of Israel to exist, and Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time [1]. Besides the arguing about the 1967 borders by pro-Palestinian students is more grounded on Palestinians’ rights to self-determination (anti-colonialist arguments) and humanitarian concerns (the atrocities committed by Israel, genocide, apartheid, etc.) without actually addressing Israeli historical security concerns, and the thorny status of Jerusalem for Israelis (especially if religious) both of which neither Palestinians nor Hamas are particularly sympathetic with.

[1]
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806498

As long as it is with so little impact to Israel, the mowing of the lawn every once in a while will continue. — ssu

However this time it looks more than just mowing the lawn, Netanyahu is more determined than ever to eradicate Hamas organisation and its infrastructure from Gaza.

From a telegram channel of ultra-nationalist Ukrainians:

На фоні новин про передачу іранських балістичних ракет малого радіусу дії в руки московитів, можна констатувати що вісь зла більш монолітна, рішуча та згуртована, аніж мʼякий західний світ. Вісь зла думає про збереження своїх багаторічних правлячих режимів, хворих на голову провладних еліт та про запаси зброї щоб це все вберегти від оточуючого світу. Західний світ думає про наступні вибори та плюралізм думок в своєму ліберальному раю, де ультраліві, ультраправі, послідовники ІДІЛу, фанати Палестини, прихильники Ізраїлю, зелені, ліберали, бізнесмени та бомжі, наркомани і баптисти мирно співіснують на одній вулиці, і поважають одне одного. Вісь зла, врешті-решт, переможе цивілізований світ. Бо сильні ті, хто відвантажує запаси смертоносної зброї своїм союзникам, а не боїться міфічної «ескалації», коли повномасштабна війна триває вже третій рік. Сильні ті, хто диктує свої умови і діє, а не обіцяє з огляду на соціологічні опитування.


Against the background of the news about the transfer of Iranian short-range ballistic missiles into the hands of Muscovites, it can be stated that the axis of evil is more monolithic, decisive and united than the soft Western world. The axis of evil is thinking about preserving its long-term ruling regimes, sick-headed pro-government elites, and stockpiles of weapons to protect it all from the outside world. The Western world is thinking about the next election and pluralism of opinion in its liberal paradise, where far-left, far-right, followers of ISIS, fanatics of Palestine, supporters of Israel, greens, liberals, businessmen and homeless people, drug addicts and Baptists peacefully coexist on the same street, and respect each other. The axis of evil will ultimately defeat the civilized world. Because those who are strong are those who ship stocks of deadly weapons to their allies, and are not afraid of the mythical "escalation", when a full-scale war has been going on for the third year. Strong are those who dictate their terms and act, rather than making promises based on sociological surveys.




Зеленський похвалився, що українські військові не беруть в полон цивільних московитів. Дійсно, що ми звірі якісь? Ми ж не московити, це тільки їм можна бити електричним струмом 16-річних підлітків з окупованих територій та садити на двадцять пʼять років цивільних тітоньок-кухарок. У нас і військовополонені московити в полоні виглядають набагато краще, ніж до полону.
Тим часом, наш обмінний фонд далі залишається надто скудним, а проросійські депутати голосують в Раді разом з монобільшістю, допомагають одне одному втікати з країни, блокують трибуни парламенту щоб, боронь боже, не заборонили рпц фсб. Московити хапають українців та кримських татар в окупованому Криму за вподобайки в ВКонтакті та схований український прапор в шухляді. Чому ми не можемо забрати всіх цивільних московитів з контрольованих територій та обміняти на наших цивільних - поза межами мого розуміння. Доки буде панувати вся ця толерастія до ворога? Війна все більше виглядає гнилим договорняком. І буде виглядати ще більшим, якщо ми на божевільні дії ворога будемо відповідати ниттям в імпотентних міжнародних організаціях. В моєму розумінні моралі: на жесть ти маєш відповісти подвійною жестю. На подвійну жесть - потрійною. Коли по відношенню тебе жестять, а ти терпилиш - ти тільки подовжиш строк свого ганебного існування, а в підсумку програєш.



Zelensky boasted that the Ukrainian military does not capture civilian Muscovites. Are we really some animals? We are not Muscovites, only they can electrocute 16-year-old teenagers from the occupied territories and imprison civilian cook aunties for twenty-five years. Muscovites who are prisoners of war look much better in our country than before they were captured.
Meanwhile, our exchange fund continues to be too meager, and pro-Russian deputies vote in the Rada together with a monomajority, help each other flee the country, block the stands of the parliament so that, God forbid, they do not ban the FSB RPC. Muscovites are grabbing Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in occupied Crimea for VKontakte likes and a hidden Ukrainian flag in a drawer. Why we can't take all civilian Muscovites from the controlled territories and exchange them for our civilians is beyond my understanding. How long will all this tolerance for the enemy prevail? War looks more and more like a rotten deal. And it will look even bigger if we respond to the crazy actions of the enemy by whining in impotent international organizations. In my understanding of morality: you must respond to a gesture with a double gesture. On double tin - triple. When they treat you harshly and you tolerate it, you will only prolong the term of your shameful existence, and in the end you will lose.



В рамках екзистенційного протистояння, коли московити вбивають українців цілими сімʼями (як позавчора в Запоріжжі, а сьогодні у Львові), ми не можемо собі дозволити уникати цілей серед руснявих цивільних. Кожен український офіцер має наносити дитячі будинки, лікарні, будинки пристарілих, ринки, супермаркети в рф - в список планових цілей. Кожен цивільний автомобіль московита в Брянській області має бути під прицілом українського FPV. Треба запамʼятати одне: якщо у московитів закінчаться ракети - їм їх надішле КНДР. Якщо дрони - допоможе Іран. Будуть знищені всі бомбардувальники - купить Китай. Це аксіома, в якій московитам вісь зла не дасть програти військовим шляхом. Ми можемо діяти лише терористичними методами, адже ми набагато слабкіші в ресурсному плані, аніж московити. Паніка, страх, знищені населені пункти, терор - супутники нашої Держави; женевські конвенції, «права людини», «міжнародні домовленості» - слабкість.



In the framework of the existential confrontation, when Muscovites kill Ukrainians in whole families (as the day before yesterday in Zaporizhzhia, and today in Lviv), we cannot afford to avoid targets among Russian civilians. Every Ukrainian officer should put orphanages, hospitals, homes for the elderly, markets, supermarkets in the Russian Federation on the list of planned targets. Every civilian car of a Muscovite in the Bryansk region should be under the sights of the Ukrainian FPV. One thing must be remembered: if the Muscovites run out of missiles, the DPRK will send them to them. If drones - Iran will help. All bombers will be destroyed - China will buy. This is an axiom in which the axis of evil will not allow Muscovites to lose by military means. We can only act with terrorist methods, because we are much weaker in terms of resources than Muscovites. Panic, fear, destroyed settlements, terror are companions of our State; Geneva Conventions, "human rights", "international agreements" - weakness.

В Україні багато хто мастурбує на Ізраїль, включно з першими особами держави. Проте, ми не діємо як Ізраїль. Чи могли б ми знести з лиця землі бєлгород? Могли б. Чи могли б завдавати ударів по московитських ринках та ТЦ в вихідні дні, заживо хоронячи електорат путіна? Звісно, могли б.

In Ukraine, many people masturbate to Israel, including the first heads of state. However, we do not act like Israel. Could we destroy Belgorod from the face of the earth? They could. Could they strike Moscow's markets and shopping centers on weekends, burying Putin's electorate alive? Of course, they could.

Нині модно бути підспівувачем у центральної влади. Не знаю - свідомо це роблять певні люди при погонах чи ні, але виглядає так, наче це заплановано. Погані бояри, хороший цар. Чекаю з нетерпінням, коли весь цей треш, що коїться, якось закінчиться, більшість мобілізованих повернеться додому, пройдуть нові вибори, на яких громадяни зможуть впевнено дати оцінку нинішній владі, частина людей емігрує. Так буде виглядати наша «перемога», якщо Київ не буде окупований московитами, а Українська Держава існуватиме як така.

Nowadays, it is fashionable to be a backup singer for the central government. I don't know if certain people do it consciously or not, but it looks like it's planned. Bad boyars, good king. I am looking forward to when all this trash that is happening will somehow end, most of the mobilized will return home, new elections will be held, at which citizens will be able to confidently evaluate the current government, some people will emigrate. This is what our "victory" will look like if Kyiv is not occupied by Muscovites, and the Ukrainian State exists as such.

З огляду на те, що переважна кількість московитських ракет, що летіли сьогодні від Краматорську до Ужгорода, йшли по обʼєктах енергетики, я ще раз наголошую на фактичній безперспективності ударів лише по військовій інфраструктурі. Військові літаки, в яких летять сотні наших дорого вартісних дронів, перемістяться далі на схід від кордонів, а їх кількість у москивитів перевищує кількість наших літаків у десятки разів. Єдиний вихід перемоги (мирних перемовин з росією на вигідних умовах) - засипати росію трунами. Кількість вбитих цивільних московитів має в рази перевищувати кількість вбитих цивільних українців. Українська артилерія має рівняти з землею не лише ворожі спостережні пости, а й дитячі садки, навіки засипаючи маленьких рамзанів, ахматів, кужугетів та сєрафімів. Дрони мають летіти не тільки по летовищах, а і по густонаселених кварталах прикордонних обласних центрів. Це єдина формула перемоги, яка є на сьогодні. Поки росія не захлинеться кровʼю, а кількість трауру не перевищуватиме сумарну кількість радощів - війна буде тривати.

Given the fact that the majority of Muscovite rockets flying today from Kramatorsk to Uzhhorod hit energy facilities, I once again emphasize the actual futility of strikes only on military infrastructure. Military planes, in which hundreds of our expensive drones fly, will move further east of the borders, and their number among Muscovites exceeds the number of our planes ten times. The only way out of victory (peace negotiations with Russia on favorable terms) is to cover Russia with coffins. The number of killed civilian Muscovites must be many times higher than the number of killed Ukrainian civilians. Ukrainian artillery must raze not only enemy observation posts to the ground, but also kindergartens, forever burying little Ramzans, Akhmats, Kuzhugets, and Seraphim. Drones should fly not only over airports, but also over densely populated quarters of border regional centers. This is the only winning formula available today. As long as Russia does not choke on blood, and the number of mourning does not exceed the total number of joys, the war will continue.

Важливим аспектом проведення операцій на територіях ворога - є знищення майна та садиб московитів: підпали, вбивства ватного електорату, підриви. Найбільше московити зі звільнених територій бояться втратити майно і ніколи не повернутись в свої халупи.

Нехай же український солдат, памʼятаючи Бучу, Волноваху, Маріуполь та Бахмут, зробить так, щоб кожен московит памʼятав суджу та льгов

An important aspect of conducting operations in the enemy's territories is the destruction of property and estates of Muscovites: arson, murders of the cotton electorate, bombings. Muscovites from the liberated territories are most afraid of losing their property and never returning to their shacks.

Let the Ukrainian soldier, remembering Bucha, Volnovakha, Mariupol and Bakhmut, make sure that every Muscovite remembers the court and lies


Подивіться який злий сидит путін в кріслі і слухає доповідь військового пенсіонера герасімова, який в стилі його українських симетричних колег розповідає про стабільну ситуацію та зупинку просування наших військ. Подивіться як мерзенно виправдовуються американці за наш курський наступ. Ниють, що з ними не погодили, кажуть що нічого не розуміють що відбувається, починають згадувати про заборону застосування американської зброї і все таке. Наші в ГШ просто не беруть слухавку від стурбованих «колег» з-за океану. Бо колег, як і раніше, дуже турбує спокій російських обивателів, адже американці нормально сприймають смерть українських дітей в Україні, але дуже болісно сприймають смерть російських громадян в росії. В їх парадигмі вмирати мають лише українці, на крайняк - московити у яких є автомат і камуфляж. Московит в Суджі, на думку американців, має ходити на роботу, пити по вечорах пиво перед телешоу скабєєвой, ходити раз на пару років на вибори - голосувати за путіна чи його партію. Жити це просте російське тихе життя гєни букіна тихої курської губернії.

Єдиний, хто на сьогоднішній день може захистити українців в мирних містах - це український солдат, що йде по чужій землі, вбиваючи наших ворогів. Нашим важко, складно, багато хлопаків після базового курсу відразу попали на дискотеку, але це ще не кінець історії.

Look at how angry Putin is sitting in a chair and listening to the report of military pensioner Gerasimov, who, in the style of his Ukrainian symmetrical colleagues, talks about a stable situation and stopping the advance of our troops. Look at how despicable the Americans make excuses for our Kursk offensive. They whine that they did not agree with them, they say that they do not understand what is happening, they begin to mention the ban on the use of American weapons and all that. Our staff at the GS simply do not pick up the phone from worried "colleagues" from overseas. Because colleagues, as before, are very concerned about the peace of Russian citizens, because Americans perceive the death of Ukrainian children in Ukraine normally, but the death of Russian citizens in Russia is very painful. In their paradigm, only Ukrainians should die, on the extreme - Muscovites who have a machine gun and camouflage. A Muscovite in Suja, according to the Americans, should go to work, drink beer in the evenings before Skabeeva's TV show, go to the elections once every couple of years - vote for Putin or his party. To live is a simple Russian quiet life of the genea bukina of the quiet Kursk province.

Today, the only one who can protect Ukrainians in peaceful cities is a Ukrainian soldier walking on foreign land, killing our enemies. It is difficult for us, it is difficult, many guys after the basic course immediately went to the disco, but this is not the end of the story


Цивільний московит має страждати більше за московитського військового. Війна - це складне політичне рішення політичного керівництва країни-окупанта, обраного на виборах абсолютною більшістю московитського населення (> 80%). Відповідно, дії свого президента, уряду, міністра оборони та армії більшість московитів підтримують. Допоки цивільне населення країни-окупанта буде підтримувати війну, війна або ідеї повного захоплення України, у випадку якщо вона закінчиться чи призупиниться, будуть жити в мерзенних головах унтерменшів. Чим більше ворожого населення буде деморалізовано, налякане та розчаровано міфом власної непереможності - тим менше такі реваншистські ідеї будуть панувати в ворожих головах.

A civilian Muscovite must suffer more than a military Muscovite. War is a complex political decision by the political leadership of the occupying country, elected by the absolute majority of the Muscovite population (> 80%). Accordingly, the majority of Muscovites support the actions of their president, government, defense minister, and army. As long as the civilian population of the occupying country will support the war, the war or the idea of ​​a complete takeover of Ukraine, in case it ends or is suspended, will live in the vile minds of the Untermanches. The more the enemy population will be demoralized, frightened and disappointed by the myth of their own invincibility, the less such revanchist ideas will reign in the enemy's minds.

It has just been 15 years since Putin gave his speech in Munich. I re-watched it. And I thought — what a purely negative path we have taken in foreign policy over these 15 years.
Back then, there was an absolutely safe situation on our western borders. At one time, I worked as deputy head of the presidential administration and supervised military personnel. When future top military commanders came to me for interviews, I often asked them — do they see any real threat to Russia from the West? Is there any sensible and beneficial scenario for the West to attack Russia?
Not one has said “yes” in all these years.
Everyone understands perfectly well that the West is not living badly, it does not need anything. And even more so, it does not need to attack us, to receive a retaliatory strike, burned cities and countries. From the point of view of the country's security, this is empty.
If suddenly Ukraine joins NATO - and NATO commitments towards it have been accepted - then, of course, the strategic balance will shift if strike weapons, medium-range missiles, even shorter-range missiles with a flight time of several minutes to Moscow are deployed on the territory of Ukraine. But this is a topic of a completely different plan. Then it is necessary to discuss the conditions within the framework of arms limitations in Europe, non-deployment of strike weapons in Ukraine. Of course, then the corresponding demands will be put forward to us. And I fully admit that this will be one of the most important topics of negotiations, at which it will be possible to come to a common denominator.
But I repeat once again: there is no sensible scenario for an attack on Russia from Europe.
On the other hand, let's imagine that Ukraine joined NATO. It is possible that there will be hotheads there who will decide to "feel out" Russia, tickle its nerves, and maybe even drag it, as Lavrov and Putin said, into a direct confrontation with NATO. Can this be imagined? Should our territory be covered? It should be covered. Therefore, I consider the concentration of Russian troops in that region not so much as preparation for an attack, but as preparation for the formation of future fortified areas on the border with Ukraine. If in the end it is possible to reach an agreement on a general withdrawal of troops from the contact lines by 200-300 kilometers, then the troops will be redeployed. But in general, of course, when you watch Putin's old speeches, where he talks about what huge investments are coming from the West to Russia, what good relations we have, that Bush is his friend, you recall the words of Vito Corleone from "The Godfather" - "How did we come to this?"
source: https://republic.ru/posts/103121
By Evgeny Savostyanov (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%95%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87)

03.02.2022 20:42:00
Forecasts of bloodthirsty political scientists
Print version
Discuss on the forum

Of delighted hawks and hasty cuckoos

Mikhail Khodarenok

About the author: Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok – former head of the group of the 1st direction of the 1st directorate of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, colonel

Tags: realities , russia , ukraine , donbass , conflict

realities, russia, ukraine, donbass, conflict In anticipation of "Russian aggression," Ukrainian soldiers are settling down on the line of confrontation with the defenders of the DPR and LPR. Photo: Reuters

Some representatives of the Russian political class today claim that Russia is capable of inflicting a crushing defeat on Ukraine in a few hours (shorter periods are also mentioned) if a military conflict begins. Let's see how much such statements correspond to reality.

In the Russian expert community, the opinion has recently become quite ingrained that there will be no need to even introduce troops into Ukrainian territory, since the Armed Forces of this country are in a deplorable state.

Some political scientists emphasize that a powerful Russian fire strike will destroy virtually all surveillance and communication systems, artillery and tank formations. Moreover, a number of experts conclude that even one crushing strike by Russia will be enough to end such a war.

As the icing on the cake, some analysts particularly emphasize the fact that no one in Ukraine will defend the “Kiev regime.”

IT WILL NOT BE AN EASY WALK

Let's start with the latter. To claim that no one in Ukraine will defend the regime means, in practice, complete ignorance of the military-political situation and the mood of the broad masses of the people in the neighboring state. Moreover, the degree of hatred (which, as is known, is the most effective fuel for armed struggle) in the neighboring republic towards Moscow is frankly underestimated. No one will meet the Russian army with bread, salt and flowers in Ukraine.

It seems that the events in the south-east of Ukraine in 2014 have taught no one anything. Back then, they also expected that the entire left-bank Ukraine would, in a single impulse and in a matter of seconds, turn into Novorossiya. They were already drawing maps, figuring out the personnel of future city and regional administrations, and developing state flags.

But even the Russian-speaking population of this part of Ukraine (including such cities as Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Mariupol) did not support such plans in their vast majority. The Novorossiya project somehow imperceptibly fizzled out and died quietly.

In short, there is no way a liberation campaign in 2022, modeled on and likened to 1939, will work out. In this case, the words of the classic of Soviet literature Arkady Gaidar are truer than ever: "It seems that we will now have not an easy fight, but a hard battle."

"WITH LITTLE BLOOD, WITH A MIGHTY BLOW"

Now about the “powerful fire strike by Russia,” which will allegedly destroy “virtually all surveillance and communication systems, artillery and tank formations of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”

This expression alone shows that only political workers could say such a thing. For reference: during hypothetical military actions on the scale of a theater of military operations, strikes are made on priority targets and massive fire strikes are carried out. Note that during operational-strategic planning, the epithets "powerful" (as well as "medium", "weak", etc.) are not used.

In military science it is emphasized that strikes can be strategic (this mostly applies to strategic nuclear forces), operational and tactical. According to the number of participating forces and targets, strikes can be massive, group and single. And other concepts, even in works of a political science nature, are still better not to introduce or use.

Strikes at priority targets and massive fire strikes can be carried out within the framework of a front (fronts on Russia's western borders have not yet been formed) or the main command of the armed forces in the theater of military operations (such a command has not yet been created in the Southwestern strategic direction). Anything less than this is no longer a massive strike.

And what is, for example, a massive fire strike (MFS) of the front? To begin with, let us note that the MFS involves the maximum number of combat-ready forces and means of aviation, missile troops and artillery, electronic warfare means at the disposal of the front (operational-strategic association) commander. The MFS is one massive sortie of aviation, two or three launches of OTR and TR missile systems, several artillery fire raids. It is good if the degree of fire damage to the enemy is 60-70%.

What is the most important thing in this issue, as applied to the conflict with Ukraine? Of course, the MOU will inflict heavy losses on the probable enemy. But to expect to crush the armed forces of an entire state with just one such blow means to show simply unbridled optimism in the planning and conduct of military operations. Such MOUs will have to be inflicted not one or two, but many more in the course of hypothetical strategic actions in the theater of military operations.

It is necessary to add to this that the reserves of advanced and high-precision weapons in the Russian Armed Forces are not unlimited. Hypersonic missiles of the Zircon type are not yet in service. And the number of Kalibrs (sea-based cruise missiles), Kinzhals, Kh-101s (air-based cruise missiles) and Iskander missiles is measured in hundreds at best (tens in the case of Kinzhals). This arsenal is absolutely insufficient to wipe off the face of the Earth a country the size of France and with a population of over 40 million people. And these are precisely the parameters that characterize Ukraine.

ABOUT AIR DOMINANCE

Sometimes in the Russian expert community it is claimed (by fans of the Douhet doctrine) that since hypothetical military actions in Ukraine will take place under conditions of complete dominance of Russian aviation in the air, the war will be extremely short-lived and will end in the shortest possible time.

At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that the armed formations of the Afghan opposition did not have a single aircraft or a single combat helicopter during the conflict of 1979-1989. And the war in that country lasted for 10 years. The Chechen fighters did not have a single aircraft either. And the fight against them lasted for several years and cost the federal forces a lot of blood and victims.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces do have some sort of combat aviation, as well as air defense systems.

By the way, Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile forces (not Georgian ones) significantly pinched the Russian Air Force during the 2008 conflict. After the first day of combat operations, the Russian Air Force leadership was in outright shock from the losses they had suffered. And we shouldn't forget about that.

MOURNED IN ADVANCE

Now about the thesis "The Armed Forces of Ukraine are in a deplorable state." Of course, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have problems with aviation and modern air defense systems. But we must also admit the following. If before 2014 the Armed Forces of Ukraine were a fragment of the Soviet army, then over the past seven years a qualitatively different army has been created in Ukraine, on a completely different ideological basis and in many respects on NATO standards. And very modern weapons and equipment are now coming and continue to come to Ukraine from many countries of the North Atlantic Alliance.

As for the weakest point of the Ukrainian Armed Forces – the Air Force. It cannot be ruled out that the collective West can, in a relatively short period of time, supply Kyiv with fighters, so to speak, from the armed forces – in other words, used. However, this second-hand will be quite comparable in its tactical and technical characteristics to most of the aircraft in the Russian air fleet.

Of course, today the Ukrainian Armed Forces are significantly inferior to the Russian Armed Forces in their combat and operational capabilities. No one doubts this - neither in the East nor in the West.

But you can't treat this army lightly either. In this regard, you should always remember the advice of Alexander Suvorov: "Never despise your enemy, don't consider him stupider and weaker than you."

Now, regarding the claim that Western countries will not send a single soldier to die for Ukraine.

It should be noted that this is most likely what will happen. However, this does not at all exclude, in the event of a Russian invasion, massive aid to the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the collective West in the form of a wide variety of weapons and military equipment and large-scale deliveries of all kinds of material resources. In this regard, the West has already demonstrated an unprecedented consolidated position, which, it seems, was not predicted in Moscow.

There is no doubt that the US and the North Atlantic Alliance will begin a kind of reincarnation of Lend-Lease, modeled on the Second World War. An influx of volunteers from the West, of which there could be many, is also possible.

PARTISANS AND UNDERGROUND MEMBERSHIP

And finally, about the duration of the hypothetical campaign. The Russian expert community names several hours, sometimes even several tens of minutes. At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that we have already been through all this. The phrase "to take a city with one parachute regiment in two hours" has already become a classic of the genre.

It is also worth recalling that Stalin's mighty NKVD and the multi-million Soviet army fought the nationalist underground in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years. And now there is an option that all of Ukraine can easily join the partisans. Moreover, these formations can easily begin to operate on Russian territory.

Armed fighting in large Ukrainian cities is generally difficult to predict. It is well known that a large city is the best battlefield for the weaker and less technically advanced side of an armed conflict.

Serious experts emphasize that in a megalopolis it is possible not only to concentrate a group of thousands and even tens of thousands of fighters, but also to hide it from the superior firepower of the enemy. And also to supply it with material resources for a long time and to replenish losses in people and equipment. Neither mountains, nor forests, nor jungles provide such an opportunity today.

Experts are convinced that the urban environment helps the defenders, slows down the movement of the attackers, allows for a record number of fighters to be deployed per unit of area, and compensates for the lag in forces and technology. And in Ukraine there are more than enough large cities, including those with a million inhabitants. So, during a hypothetical war with Ukraine, the Russian army may encounter more than just Stalingrad and Grozny.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, there will be no Ukrainian blitzkrieg. Statements by some experts such as "The Russian army will defeat most of the Ukrainian Armed Forces units in 30-40 minutes", "Russia is capable of defeating Ukraine in 10 minutes in the event of a full-scale war", "Russia will defeat Ukraine in eight minutes" have no serious basis.

And finally, the most important thing. The armed conflict with Ukraine at the present time fundamentally does not meet the national interests of Russia. Therefore, some overexcited Russian experts would be better off forgetting about their self-indulgent fantasies. And in order to prevent further reputational losses, never to remember them again.

source: https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02-03/3_1175_donbass.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodaryonok

On 31 January 2022, during the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, as Chairman of the Russian Officers' General Assembly, Gen. Ivashov published a statement condemning Putin's "criminal policy of provoking a war" and calling for President Putin's resignation.[6][7][8] Blaming Putin for risking "the final destruction of Russian statehood and the extermination of the indigenous population of the country" Ivashov stated that the real danger for Russia was not NATO or the West but "the unviability of the state model, the complete incapacity and lack of professionalism of the system of power and administration, the passivity and disorganization of society." Under these conditions "no country survives for long".[8] According to Roderick Gregory, "Ivashov believes that NATO is a hostile power, but his experience has taught him that the NATO/U.S. threat is under control and no external threat is imminent from the Western powers."

Also on 7 February 2022 Ivashov publicly called for Putin to resign over threats of a "criminal" invasion of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov


The Chairman of the All-Russian Officers' Assembly, Colonel General Leonid Grigorievich Ivashov, wrote an Appeal to the President and Citizens of the Russian Federation "The Eve of War":

Appeal of the All-Russian Officers' Assembly

to the President and Citizens of the Russian Federation

Today, humanity lives in anticipation of war. And war is inevitable human casualties, destruction, suffering of large masses of people, destruction of the usual way of life, disruption of the life support systems of states and peoples. A great war is a huge tragedy, someone's grave crime. It so happened that Russia found itself in the center of this looming catastrophe. And, perhaps, this is the first time in its history.

Earlier, Russia (the USSR) waged forced (just) wars, and, as a rule, when there was no other way out, when the vital interests of the state and society were under threat.

And what threatens the existence of Russia itself today, and are there such threats? It can be argued that there really are threats - the country is on the verge of the end of its history. All vital spheres, including demography, are steadily degrading, and the rate of population extinction is breaking world records. And the degradation is systemic, and in any complex system, the destruction of one of the elements can lead to the collapse of the entire system.

And this, in our opinion, is the main threat to the Russian Federation. But this is an internal threat, emanating from the model of the state, the quality of power and the state of society. And the reasons for its formation are internal: the unviability of the state model, the complete incapacity and unprofessionalism of the system of power and governance, the passivity and disorganization of society. No country can live long in such a state.

As for external threats, they are certainly present. But, according to our expert assessment, they are not currently critical, directly threatening the existence of Russian statehood, its vital interests. In general, strategic stability is maintained, nuclear weapons are under reliable control, NATO force groups are not increasing, they do not show threatening activity.

Therefore, the situation being whipped up around Ukraine is, first of all, artificial, selfish in nature for certain internal forces, including the Russian Federation. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, in which Russia (Yeltsin) played a decisive role, Ukraine became an independent state, a member of the UN, and in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter has the right to individual and collective defense.

The leadership of the Russian Federation has still not recognized the results of the referendum on the independence of the DPR and LPR, while at the official level, more than once, including during the Minsk negotiation process, it emphasized the belonging of their territories and population to Ukraine.

It has also been repeatedly said at a high level about the desire to maintain normal relations with Kiev, without singling out special relations with the DPR and LPR.

The issue of the genocide committed by Kiev in the south-eastern regions was not raised either in the UN or in the OSCE. Naturally, in order for Ukraine to remain a friendly neighbor for Russia, it was necessary to demonstrate to it the attractiveness of the Russian model of state and system of power.

But the Russian Federation has not become such, its development model and foreign policy mechanism of international cooperation repel almost all of its neighbors, and not only.

Russia's acquisition of Crimea and Sevastopol and the non-recognition of them as Russian by the international community (and, therefore, the overwhelming majority of countries in the world still consider them to belong to Ukraine) convincingly demonstrates the failure of Russian foreign policy and the unattractiveness of its domestic policy.

Attempts to force people to "love" the Russian Federation and its leadership through ultimatums and threats of force are senseless and extremely dangerous.

The use of military force against Ukraine, firstly, will call into question the existence of Russia itself as a state; secondly, it will forever make Russians and Ukrainians mortal enemies. Thirdly, there will be thousands (tens of thousands) of young, healthy guys killed on both sides, which will certainly affect the future demographic situation in our dying countries. On the battlefield, if this happens, Russian troops will encounter not only Ukrainian servicemen, among whom there will be many Russian guys, but also servicemen and equipment from many NATO countries, and the member states of the alliance will be obliged to declare war on Russia.

The President of the Republic of Turkey R. Erdogan clearly stated on whose side Turkey will fight. And it can be assumed that two field armies and the navy of Turkey will be ordered to "liberate" Crimea and Sevastopol and, possibly, invade the Caucasus.

In addition, Russia will definitely be included in the category of countries threatening peace and international security, will be subject to the heaviest sanctions, will become an outcast of the world community, and will probably be deprived of the status of an independent state.

The president and the government, the Ministry of Defense cannot fail to understand such consequences, they are not that stupid.
source: https://web-archive-org.translate.goog/web/20220214005455/http://ooc.su/news/obrashhenie_obshherossijskogo_oficerskogo_sobranija_k_prezidentu_i_grazhdanam_rossijskoj_federacii/2022-01-31-79?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

...just like the interviewer with her own political bias. — ssu

...just like anybody else, me and you included. And that's why I think a philosophy forum is an ideal place to honestly identify, explicit and argue about the grounds of such bias wrt the bias of one's opponents without the pretence we are going to fix anything about the world by doing this. gnōthi sauton should be our philosophical motto too.

I am definately sure that those American students who protest for Palestine are far more protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending) than supporters of the armed branches of the Palestinians in a way that would put them on a terrorist watch list. — ssu

I don't doubt that either. Yet one must be naive, if not disingenuous, to believe that those pro-Palestinian students "protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending)" may have a political impact immune from risks such as costly unintended consequences (like being instrumental to Hamas) where the most direct costs are on Israeli's and Jewish shoulders. If governments' legitimacy and accountability highly depend on the governments' capacity of preserving security (whatever that means) of those who willingly submit to it, we should not expect governments to pursue security of foreign people at the expense of domestic people's security. Actually we are compelled to expect quite the contrary, especially if security concerns between foreign and domestic people are perceived as incompatible for historical and geopolitical reasons. Then of course you can add on top of that the risk of nasty polarising propaganda and politicians' selfish interest on one or both sides, among others. My point is that one can't convincingly flatten the analysis of this conflict down just to nasty propaganda on one or both sides. I find it shallow, if not hypocritical, and arrogant. Even more so if this is done in a philosophy forum.

This is debatable though: — neomac

Then shouldn't they show the flag, march in step in what they believe? — ssu

There have been pro-Palestinian protestors who did that in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRE_hIMFVU
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-spotted-holding-hamas-flags-151851331.html
https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1417172/hezbollah-and-hamas-flags-waved-during-pro-palestinian-demonstration-in-new-york.html
https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/war-in-israel/white-house-condemns-anti-israel-protesters-supporting-hamas/

But, more generally, I think the most pertinent answer to your question is no.
Concerning the war in Ukraine, there are pro-Russians in Western media (as in the dedicated thread of this forum) who do not go around waving Russian flags and chanting “Slava Rossii”.
They embrace the Russian or Hamas narrative about facts and responsibilities, and the resistance narrative: Russians and Palestinians have been provoked and they are defending themselves. The greatest burden of responsibility remains on the West, the US, Ukraine or Israel which means that the West, the US, Ukraine or Israel are not in position to reproach the perceived aggressors (Russia or Hamas) or to impose just punishment or to refuse concessions to the perceived aggressors.
Pro-Palestinians activists do not need to explicitly justify Hamas’ response to Israel to be considered pro-Hamas, they can even condemn it (many actually do, when solicited), yet they will complain about Israel in relative terms as way worse than Hamas, and as the one who started all of it, no matter the Jewish history and Israeli security concerns.
The emotional argument (genocide in Gaza, Israel as an apartheid state, Gaza as an open air prison, war crimes against Palestinian kids and civilians etc.) is implicitly meant to back up a psychological excuse for Hamas’ most brutal aggression against Israelis, while granting pro-Palestinians a plausible disclaimer about their morally ambiguous position toward Hamas and a cheap accusation against their opponents' alleged misrepresentations of their own views. The same goes with Western pro-Russian supporters as we can see in the thread dedicated to the war in Ukraine.

And your video is a perfect example of the media bias ...this example on the right-wing side. Are the demonstrators really celebrating Hamas, as the interviewer says? Celebrating Hamas? And the decapitated babies rumour? Still going on?

God I hate this stupidity. — ssu

If we want to assess to what extent the pro-Palestinian front is willing to support Hamas’ resistance against the Israeli oppression, we have to focus on them and on their propaganda, not on pro-Israel propaganda. And from that video one can clearly hear such students to be supportive of martyrdom, provocation, and resistance narrative, while refusing to explicitly acknowledge their implications when such narrative is to be applied to Hamas. If they were forced to, I believe they would likely go with “yes, but who started all of it?”, “who did worse to the other?”, etc. to cope with their cognitive dissonance.
What people talking politics do not seem to realise is that they are not Olympian gods refereeing human affairs. They all are part of the same political game, and all they say and do can be instrumental one way or the other to others’ political ends, even the ones they claim to dislike or morally condemn.

those holding Palestinian flags aren't supporters of Hamas. — ssu

This is debatable though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Justice_in_Palestine#Criticism_and_controversies
https://www.haaretz.com/haaretz-explains/2023-11-17/ty-article/.premium/what-is-students-for-justice-in-palestine-the-group-igniting-u-s-campus-wars-over-israel/0000018b-d950-dffa-adef-ff50463f0000
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/10/psc-statement-backlash/
https://www.intelligent.com/1-in-5-college-students-sympathize-with-hamas/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-campus-war-on-israel/

Hezbollah's flags look more popular:
https://x.com/SprinterFamily/status/1783619759927435275
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1826708643456209366
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-student-slams-princeton-permitting-201822811.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEek4XJ_k0Ey2uSa09f3cxyI6eEtqqUCrWm8b70Nv-YxyDWtQrBcSVpJ7D9CfDu6FssmdfamVAbp9v09Qe9fTfUU2F1djtippl4Um_gMGx34A9kG4gg_MvOhv__SkbufLbEHXBdrr0KDgl1bQ5l4Ujj-hdblzGPStNWgf2wpyAsc

To me the problem is still in the way issues are framed. Indeed, even though one can explicitly be pro-Palestinian in a broader sense without being explicitly pro-Hamas, that doesn't exclude the fact that many pro-Palestinians are willingly walking over grey lines to obfuscate themselves and their interlocutors about their position toward Hamas for the same reasons Tzeench laid out:

The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel. Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense. — Tzeentch

https://springmag.ca/york-university-student-unions-statement-of-solidarity-with-palestine
In response to Palestinian resistance, so-called Israel has continued to escalate attacks on Gaza by bombing residential neighborhoods, deploying white phosphorus bombs and cutting off access to food, water, power and medical supplies. These tactics are not new. So-called Israel has continually restricted Palestinians movement to & from Gaza, creating an open-air prison and obstructing access to essential resources within the apartheid fence for decades. These recent events serve as a reminder that from Turtle Island to Palestine, and across all occupied lands, resistance against colonial violence is justified and necessary. This is “decolonization” and “land-back” actualized as we continue to see the Palestinian people stand firm in their resistance against their oppressors.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. — neomac

The Sunni Shia conflict started in earnest with Iraq and later with the civil war in Syria. It hasn't intertwined actually so much. For example for a long time Isrealis went as tourists to see (naturally from their side) from the Golan Heights the Civil War in Syria. That you can sit comfortably on a hill and watch the fighting on the other side of the border tells that ISIS wasn't targetting Israel (which btw. has created a lot of conspiracy theories in the Middle East). The Sunni Islamists simply left their wounded on the border where Israeli troops picked them up and moved them to a Israeli hospital. — ssu

I was talking about the strategic conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran as aspirational leaders of respectively Sunnis and Shias, and more widely of the Muslim world, which ends up in several related proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Also the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays a role in this conflict, because Hamas (as Iranian proxy) is an expression of the Iranian political influence and material power projection in the Arab world, it compromises the normalisation of relations between Saudis and Israelis, and its Islamist ideology challenges the legitimacy as Arab monarchies like the Saudis. Besides, depending on how other proxy wars (in Iraq, Syria, Yemen) go the political pressure and security threats on both the Saudis and Israel may vary, decrease or increase.

Yes, just like Saddam Hussein then launched Scuds to Israel because ...why not. A populist move to gain support of the "Arab street" which people occasionally try to do.

Yet what has been the response this time? Some angry rhetoric from the Turkish leader and some angry rhetoric from other countries. And well, that's about it...

So these are quite different conflicts, even if the actors intertwine as you say. — ssu

If we want to take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a thermometer to assess the cultural clash between the West world and the Middle-Eastern Muslim world, we can’t discount different roots (pluri-centennial conflict between Sunnis and Shias) and rival actors (Iranian mullahs, Saudis, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, etc.), as I acknowledged. But we can’t discount the fact that the Palestinian condition and Western imperialism have been object of bitter grievance in the Muslim world and have been exploited by different actors and despite their competition within the Muslim world. That’s why I was talking about “many cultural clashes”

Within Islam there's a lot of totally different struggles going on, which then splash even on our shores and then there's the question of migration in general. — ssu

You didn’t prove they are “totally different struggles” or “separate”. One can distinguish to some extent national and religious roots, and major actors in various conflicts plaguing the Middle East but they heavily interact and influence each other materially and ideologically. Maybe there is not one clash of civilisation but many.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one specific conflict that soon will have gone for a Century. — ssu

Then there's Sunni-Shia struggle we've seen in Iraq and Syria. — ssu

And then there's the now quite institutionalized Iranian revolution that is something like Marxism-Leninism was for the Soviet Union, which has picked Israel in it's crosshairs (and vice versa). — ssu

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict between Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. For such Sunni and Shia regimes, supporting the Palestinian cause is also about securing domestic legitimacy and enhancing regional influence. By advocating for Palestinians, such regimes attempt to gain the moral high ground and appeal to the broader Muslim population, which often sympathizes with the Palestinian struggle. This dynamic fuels the rivalry and on both sides there are attempts to outdo the other in showing support for Palestine

https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/11/between-swords-of-iron-and-the-al-aqsa-deluge-the-regional-politics-of-the-israel-hamas-war/

Separate is the Sunni Islmamism that started with Al Qaeda. — ssu

From Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people”:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040615081002/http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Whoever has basic notions of logic can't get easily impressed by roughly true predictions, no matter how many they are. Here is why:
1. from false premises one can correctly infer true conclusions,
2. from a set of incompatible premises (namely premises that can not be at the same time true but can be at the same time false, or premises that can be neither true nor false at the same time) one can correctly infer exactly the same true conclusions.

Examples:

Every Saturday it rains
Tomorrow is Saturday
Tomorrow it rains

Every other day of the week than Saturday it rains
Tomorrow is not Saturday
Tomorrow it rains

Both arguments are formally sound. And they lead to the very same conclusive prediction. However, such conclusive prediction may happen to be true even if all or some individual premises are false and comparatively incompatible because contrary or contradictory. So it's not enough that predictions are true, nor that reasoning is sound to have valid predictive arguments or theories.

the idea that the West carries principal responsibility in this war and that the West's conduct so far has been nothing short of shameful — Tzeentch

Let’s complete your reasoning: if the West carries principal responsibility, which one carries secondary responsibility? Ukraine or Russia? I guess it’s Ukraine, right? So no matter what responsibility Russia has in this conflict, yet neither the West nor Ukraine are in position to reproach Russia or to demand compensation or impose punishment to Russia, right? They must pay whatever follows from Russian invasion. Including nuclear bombing of course. This is your serious reasoning or a caricature, Tzeench?

western experts, analists and academics - a group that has done a vastly better job at predicting the course and outcome of this war than those who subscribe to the narrative that is put forward by virtually every major western media outlet. — Tzeentch

In what sense "vastly better"? Actually many geopolitical and military experts other than the few names you often cite explained the root causes [1], or “roughly” predicted what the unfortunate course [2] and the outcome [3] could be, no matter how questionable you find Western media propaganda. So the fascination comes more from the way those few names argue and assess blame which pleases pro-Russian populists like you.

[1]
On Ukraine’s independence and its impact on Russia (1991):
* "Ukraine's independence fundamentally changes the post-Cold War landscape. For Russia, losing Ukraine is a major blow to its ambitions of maintaining a significant influence in Eastern Europe. The success or failure of Ukraine as an independent state will determine the future trajectory of Russian policy."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Premature Partnership." Foreign Affairs, March/April 1991.

On Ukraine’s strategic importance to Russia (1997):
* "It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources, as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." Basic Books, 1997, p. 46.

On Russia’s likely strategy toward Ukraine (1994):
* "For Russia, the loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, reducing its geostrategic status and diminishing its sphere of influence in Central Europe. Thus, Russian efforts to reassert influence over Ukraine should be expected, especially given Ukraine's strategic significance."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Ukraine: Crucial to Europe's Security." Foreign Affairs, September/October 1994.

On potential Russian moves against Ukraine (1997):
* "A Ukraine firmly aligned with the West would be a major setback to Russia's aspirations to reassert its influence over the former Soviet space. As such, the Kremlin might use a combination of political pressure, economic leverage, and covert actions to try to bring Ukraine back under its influence."
* Source: Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." Basic Books, 1997, p. 92


[2]
”I fear that the West may not have the political will to sustain the level of support Ukraine needs to resist Russian aggression over the long term."
* Date: March 2022
* Source: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, in an interview with CNN.

"There is a real risk that Western countries will grow weary of the conflict and reduce their support for Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to Russian advances."
* Date: February 2022
* Source: Anne Applebaum, historian and journalist, in an article for The Atlantic.

"I am skeptical about the West's ability to maintain a united front in supporting Ukraine, given the economic and political pressures at home."
* Date: April 2022
* Source: Ian Bremmer, political scientist and president of Eurasia Group, in a tweet.

"The West's capacity to provide sustained military and economic aid to Ukraine is uncertain, and this could have dire consequences for the conflict."
* Date: May 2022
* Source: Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, in an interview with The Washington Post.

"I worry that the West may not be willing to bear the costs and risks associated with supporting Ukraine, especially if the conflict escalates further."
* Date: June 2022
* Source: Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article for Foreign Affairs.

"There is a concern that Western countries will prioritize their own interests over Ukraine's needs, leading to insufficient support."
* Date: July 2022
* Source: John Mearsheimer, political scientist at the University of Chicago, in an interview with The New York Times.

"I fear that the West's willingness to provide the necessary aid to Ukraine will wane as the conflict drags on and other crises emerge."
* Date: August 2022
* Source: Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in an article for The New Yorker.

"The West's capacity to sustain support for Ukraine is uncertain, given the economic challenges and political divisions within Europe."
* Date: September 2022
* Source: Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.

"I am skeptical about the West's ability to provide the military aid Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian aggression."
* Date: October 2022
* Source: General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in an interview with The Guardian.

"There is a risk that Western countries will grow tired of the conflict and reduce their support for Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable."
* Date: November 2022
* Source: Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, in a speech at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

"The West's capacity to provide sustained military and economic aid to Ukraine is uncertain, and this could have dire consequences for the conflict."
* Date: January 2022
* Source: Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State, in an interview with Fox News.

[3]

"I fear that Ukraine may not have the military capacity to regain all the territory occupied by Russia, especially in the eastern regions."
* Date: March 2022
* Source: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, in an interview with CNN.

"There is a real risk that Ukraine will struggle to retake territory from Russia, given the significant military disparities."
* Date: February 2022
* Source: Anne Applebaum, historian and journalist, in an article for The Atlantic.

"I am skeptical about Ukraine's ability to regain control of the Donbas and Crimea, given Russia's entrenched positions and military strength."
* Date: April 2022
* Source: Ian Bremmer, political scientist and president of Eurasia Group, in a tweet.

"Ukraine faces significant challenges in retaking territory from Russia, particularly in areas where Russia has consolidated its control."
* Date: May 2022
* Source: Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, in an interview with The Washington Post.

"I worry that Ukraine may not have the resources or the military capability to push back Russian forces and regain lost territory."
* Date: June 2022
* Source: Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article for Foreign Affairs.

"There is a concern that Ukraine's military, despite its bravery and determination, may not be able to overcome Russia's superior firepower and logistical support."
* Date: July 2022
* Source: John Mearsheimer, political scientist at the University of Chicago, in an interview with The New York Times.

"I fear that Ukraine may not have the capacity to regain all the territory occupied by Russia, especially in the eastern regions."
* Date: August 2022
* Source: Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in an article for The New Yorker.

"Ukraine's ability to retake territory from Russia is uncertain, given the significant military disparities and the entrenched positions of Russian forces."
* Date: September 2022
* Source: Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.

"I am skeptical about Ukraine's capacity to regain control of the Donbas and Crimea, given Russia's military strength and the strategic importance of these regions."
* Date: October 2022
* Source: General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, in an interview with The Guardian.

"There is a risk that Ukraine will struggle to retake territory from Russia, given the significant military disparities and the entrenched positions of Russian forces."
* Date: November 2022
* Source: Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, in a speech at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Caricatures aside — Tzeentch

Your "serious" arguments come out as caricatures already and you dare to complain if we serve you your own meal?

If you have changed your mind you may start with the post whose contents you almost fully ignored in favor of a "I'm not going to talk to you anymore!" — Tzeentch

So then Tzeentch can ignore yours, @ssu, in favor of a "I'm not going to talk to you anymore!"

https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/99d85643-946a-4d9c-8ff8-3021dc4106ab

Interesting view, if "things get out of hand in a nuclear way", let's blame the US as the puppet master and the Ukrainians as the puppets, and not even mention Russia as the one actually nuclear bombing the region. More than interesting, serious, a serious view on this conflict as you only are capable of.
BTW why on earth would Russia nuclear bomb the region if this not only will not hit back at the US ("US has nothing to lose") but it will greatly benefit the US ("much to gain in a cataclysmic conflict in Eastern Europe", "It would cripple all its potential rivals on the Eurasian mainland")? What strategic reasoning is forcing Putin to bomb the region so that the US will gain much and Eurasian mainland (including Russia) will be crippled?
BTW Putin has already won the war in Ukraine, right? And Ukrainians puppets can only afford stunts "just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost", so what are the chances of Putin bombing the region which people are grossly underestimating?